422 replies to this topic

[Johnny D]

This part has been modified, not just after market. Look at the angle in the top corners and none at the bottom where it was modified.

 

And it appears NASA is assigning a spec.

"Image 6: Example of an unmodified cage with proper tolerances and specifications."

J~

 

[Jamz14]

Frank, agreed. But the parts have been modified. If they haven't, competitors provide the source.

That is if I agree you are allowed to buy aftermarket. At the moment I don't agree. I would need to look I to the rules more but I don't believe we are allowed to buy aftermarket oil pumps, etc.

[Steve Scheifler]

This is a long one but I won’t apologize for that, some topics require more than a sound bite or tweet.

Frank, et al, I’m generally leaning toward your point of view in terms of final outcome but let’s not lose sight of 18 years of some fundamental rules and a concerted effort for the past six or so to reign back in those who stretch them.

The number one rule has never changed, if it doesn’t say you can then you can’t. Admittedly there are obvious common sense holes in that, but we needed a rule added explicitly allowing us to remove the horn, so pretty strict. We know that tech looks at anything that appears to have been modified. Like it or not, some judgement comes into play regarding the difference between repairs and modifications.

Everyone involved is aware of the rules and that anything even remotely looking like intentional modifications for the purpose of performance (even if reliability can also be claimed) will at the very least get the attention of tech. So when contemplating whether what you are about to do is “legal”, the simple fact that you stopped to contemplate it is a red flag. Not to say you don’t proceed, but you’d better think it through and maybe even get a ruling on it.

As you say, and as I and many others have, aftermarket parts make it all more difficult. As I noted above, the combination of words “exact equivalent” leaves a lot to be desired. If I found an aftermarket control arm commonly listed as being for my Miata, yet the length provided a bit more camber compared to stock, could I use it? I expect we can all agree that the answer is NO, whatever “exact equivalent” means, that isn’t it. If we can agree on that then at least part of your argument weakens, whether the shafts were purchased as-is or modified to match some unicorn part they once found.

But from what NASA has released and other information trickling out, they are looking at multiple aftermarket parts and discussing with major rebuilders how it is done and what variances are expected. But they can’t possibly prove that no reman shafts have ever been sold where the ball passes cleanly through the cage, and they don’t have to. The burden of proof here is arguable but there will always have to be room for judgement in certain cases. It is not reasonable to believe that every cage in each axle was worn enough to explain it, or even that “necessary” cleanup is responsible (particularly given the crudeness of some not exactly looking like a cleanup). So let’s assume they were intentionally modified. Still, if a brand X had been found to be similar then this would probably be over because this is not like my camber example. That was just a useful example to show that aftermarket availability ALONE is not adequate. This is just a CV joint with little potential benefit from modification and few people will ever open one up unless doing their own routine lubrication. Pass a rule disallowing brand X and others like it, everyone is forced to open theirs up. Allow brand X and equivalent DIY and everyone will feel compelled to make the change just in case it matters. Nobody wins except maybe shops offering the service, but that’s the nature of the beast.

The issue of it being a wear item has also been raised to suggest that the opening might enlarge enough for the ball to pass through. That’s a lot of wear and the ball would likely also need to be replaced, at which point a larger ball is used. There are a lot of very old parts out there but so far no such example has been presented AFAIK. Let’s lump that in with unicorns for now.

So what to do with this case? First, I think criticism of NASA is totally off base. A few people elsewhere screaming incompetence, witch hunt, not having their shit together, “destroying Spec Miata” etc. I couldn’t disagree more. Given what’s happened in the past and what they found, I think they have done exactly what all the other race participants have a right to expect. The time required is unfortunate, but imagine the erosion in confidence if they had simply swept this under the rug. Been there, doesn’t work, word gets out and everybody is free to believe their own worst case. Give them credit, they are making a major effort to get it right. Give them credit for a very detailed tech effort. Give the racers credit that despite what I think was the most complete tech ever, these silly CV joints were the only thing found!

Sorry, I diverged a bit off topic but those guys REALLY pissed me off.

Back to resolution. If I were king and a common similar aftermarket part is found I vacate the DQs and try to figure out where to go from there.

If an extremely rare/random unicorn can be confirmed then I probably do the same as above, even though I don’t believe for a second that anyone was just copying what they already knew to be available.

If after much searching no such examples are found in the wild and if I firmly believe from consulted experts that they don’t exist barring a manufacturing mistake, I still drop the DQs but find something in the rules that allow me to assess a lesser penalty than positions. Points, probation, fines, whatever.

I’ve never been soft on people stretching the rules, but as I’ve stated in an earlier post the realities of aftermarket parts and the comparison to things like front wheel bearings are relevant factors, and under any circumstances this just isn’t a big deal IMO. The core rule still applies I don’t think this modification passes it, but I also believe in judgement based on other factors. To issue DQs over this seems more than excessive.

[Steve Scheifler]

Frank, agreed. But the parts have been modified. If they haven't, competitors provide the source.

That is if I agree you are allowed to buy aftermarket. At the moment I don't agree. I would need to look I to the rules more but I don't believe we are allowed to buy aftermarket oil pumps, etc.

Haven’t read current NASA rules but you most certainly can according to the GCR. In many cases you have no choice, even some of the stuff Mazda sells is just repackaged aftermarket. And axles are typically remans, done in the “aftermarket” but not necessarily originating there. No matter how you slice it, unless Mazda could supply “genuine” new parts to everyone and they were required, there is no choice. You have no way to tell if your donor has originals, aftermarket or remans on their 3rd time around.

[Danica Davison]

No matter what the outcome will be. I just hope everybody had fun at the track that weekend.

[FTodaro]

Steve the devil is in the details.

 

From a lawyers point of view, rules are strictly interpreted against those who draft the rules. Meaning, they are in control of the process and its thought that if its really important to them and the rule set they have the power and ability to spell it out clearly.

 

If there is a gray area that is exploited they can address it by amending the rules.

 

This issue is pretty clear to me. If there was no allowance to buy an aftermarket part then this is a clear winner for the DQ. But allowing that exception changes the picture in my mind. Its really that simple. You cannot give up control of it only to take it back because you feel the replacement went too far. I am not even sure that i would buy onto the argument that if it was shown that no manufactured part did not go as far as allowing the ball to pass through the cage would be good enough to justify a DQ. Why? because it is unreasonable to ask every competitor to do a survey of every source of an aftermarket part to make sure what you have is within the accepted tolerance.

 

If its that important to you then spell it out, otherwise don't complain.

 

I am sorry but i am just looking at this just like you would an unfavorable tax ruling or a denial of insurance coverage on a contract. I have no dog in this fight, I just think its an unfair position to take under those facts.

[Johnny D]

I don't think it has anything to do with aftermarket. Reading the Summary if the ball didn't pass through, oem or not, it passed.

The one's that passed through were measured, didn't match, sent to a 3rd party, deemed modified.

pretty hard to beat that.

 

Great job NASA !!

 

J~

[Steve Scheifler]

Frank, we are really close in the final outcome but your approach really does encourage that people start looking for anything they can tweak to an advantage, because there are no published specs on almost anything, and aftermarket is not only allowed but unavoidable. You effectively erase the already self-contradictory “exact equivalent”, right? No aftermarket part needs to in any way match the original? Surely not, so where do you draw the line? This isn’t the legal system, but something lawyers seem to leave out of these arguments when they make that comparison is the jury, and I would definitely like my chances with them.

Consider my aftermarket control arm example, does it pass? If so then we have a real problem, and Danny deserves a BIG f’ing apology. Not that his was aftermarket, but they are available, have no specs, and could easily be modified.

[Bench Racer]

“Exact equivalent”. Think about that.

I did and found definitions.

 

Exact = Not approximated in any way.

 

Equivalent = The same form, fit, function, and dimensions.

 

To add a another bit to this discussion, what are the determining conditions to be an automotive parts re-manufacture? 

[FTodaro]

Frank, we are really close in the final outcome but your approach really does encourage that people start looking for anything they can tweak to an advantage, because there are no published specs on almost anything, and aftermarket is not only allowed but unavoidable. You effectively erase the already self-contradictory “exact equivalent”, right? No aftermarket part needs to in any way match the original? Surely not, so where do you draw the line? This isn’t the legal system, but something lawyers seem to leave out of these arguments when they make that comparison is the jury, and I would definitely like my chances with them.

Consider my aftermarket control arm example, does it pass? If so then we have a real problem, and Danny deserves a BIG f’ing apology. Not that his was aftermarket, but they are available, have no specs, and could easily be modified.

Steve the control arm example is not a good one as they still are out there used for sure and maybe new from Mazda.

 

However you bring up a good point, we are racing cars that are 12 to 20 years old and many parts are not available. Sounds like this is a good time to address how we go about dealing with it, but I suggest you don't do it in the tech shed. 

[Steve Scheifler]

Nothing in the rules say you can buy aftermarket only when originals, new or used, are not available. How many people buy “original” water pumps, hubs, wheel bearings, ball joints, etc? So the control arm is IMO the perfect example.

Not settling it in the tech shed, especially at a big race, agree 100%, that’s just asking for trouble, and in this case they got it.

[Steve Scheifler]

Calipers and master cylinders haven’t been available new from Mazda for years. Whether we buy new aftermarket or reman, there are no published specs. Shall we start a contest to see who can “improve” on them without violating your interpretation of the rules? Might be something I can do with rotors as well.

[Bench Racer]

I did and found definitions.

 

Exact = Not approximated in any way.

 

Equivalent = The same form, fit, function, and dimensions.

 

To add a another bit to this discussion, what are the determining conditions to be an automotive parts re-manufacture? 

If master cylinders, calipers and rotors don't fit the rule, the rule would suggest non compliance.

[Steve Scheifler]

If master cylinders, calipers and rotors don't fit the rule, the rule would suggest non compliance.

No argument with me Bench, my point was directed at Frank, to apply his rationale on this case to other things and see where that gets us. My interpretation of the rules makes the axles non-compliant, in part because there is clear intent on two of them. If a common source can be found with similar examples then my tune might change because it is not reasonable for individuals to screen them. But hopefully non-compliant doesn’t have to mean DQ regardless of circumstances.

[Cnj]

No matter what the outcome will be. I just hope everybody had fun at the track that weekend.

Well in my 26th position I certainly will still think I had fun no matter the outcome. On the other hand if 3 in question are DQ’d and the 2 that passed me under yellow (caught in my video but not worth chasing after the race) are included and I move up to 21st, then I’ll improve my extremely modest bragging rights....

[TylerQuance]

If my SM donor had torn outer CV joint boots and 300k miles with dirty grease but were never disassembled, aren't my shafts "compliant" by all interpretations? If I repack them and the dyno shows I have less rolling resistance than everyone else which translates to horsepower, shouldn't everyone else have the right to make their parts equal to the most worn out (fastest) junk out there?

I race Spec Miata because I want to compete in contests of driver skill. I hope we can take worn-out-ness of outer CV joints out of the equation by making this legal and known to the entire community to equalize the cars further after these guys get to keep their finishing positions.

When I started this 2 years ago, I thought I could read the rulebook and build a competitive car with the information there. Not so. Make it easier for guys like me who come along later.

There isn't much ground to DQ, and even less to award higher finishing positions to those not teched. Thank you NASA for bringing this to light... now let's get on with it

[Johnny D]

In case you missed it. NASA seemed to use a different word than worn. The 3rd party didn't use the word worn either for some reason.

https://nasaspeed.ne...championships/#

 

J~

[TylerQuance]

I'm not saying they were worn, I'm saying they were made equal to worn. How common are the joints I described anyway? Not very, but plenty of folks have joints that are more worn but unmodified.

[Steve Scheifler]

I don’t think you will find that old but still functional ones are typically worn to the point of the ball passing through the cage and everything else still intact and working. If it were common or just easily demonstrated then this wouldn’t have taken so long. Our cars use very little suspension travel so not much angle/bind most of the time and CV joints are pretty efficient. There can’t be much to gain under any circumstances, and you are already free to open them up to clean and use the high tech lube of your choice. That’s as far as I’ve ever taken it and I think anything more is pointless.

[Johnny D]

I'm not saying they were worn, I'm saying they were made equal to worn. How common are the joints I described anyway? Not very, but plenty of folks have joints that are more worn but unmodified.

 

Made equal to worn? would that be modified ?? Hmmmm.

 

J~